Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - A hominid skull discovered in Ethiopia could fill the gap in the search for the origins of the human race, a scientist said on Friday.
The cranium, found near the city of Gawis, 500 km (300 miles) southeast of the capital Addis Ababa, is estimated to be 200,000 to 500,000 years old.
The skull appeared "to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and the later Homo sapiens," Sileshi Semaw, an Ethiopian research scientist at the Stone Age Institute at Indiana University, told a news conference in Addis Ababa.
It was discovered two months ago in a small gully at the Gawis river drainage basin in Ethiopia's Afar region, southeast of the capital.
Sileshi said significant archaeological collections of stone tools and numerous fossil animals were also found at Gawis.
"(It) opens a window into an intriguing and important period in the development of modern humans," Sileshi said.
Over the last 50 years, Ethiopia has been a hot bed for archaeological discoveries.
Hadar, located near Gawis, is where in 1974 U.S. scientist Donald Johnson found the 3.2 million year old remains of "Lucy," described by scientists as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in the world.
Lucy is Ethiopia's world-acclaimed archaeological find. The discovery of the almost complete hominid skeleton was a landmark in the search for the origins of humanity.
On the shores of what was formerly a lake in 1967, two Homo sapien skulls dating back 195,000 years were unearthed. The discovery pushed back the known date of mankind, suggesting that modern man and his older precursor existed side by side.
Sileshi said while different from a modern human, the braincase, upper face and jaw of the cranium have unmistakeable anatomical evidence that belong to human ancestry.
"The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors," he added.
Because all fish have gills by definition.
Only in a narrow definition.
Only in an accurate one.
In the broad definition, a whale is a fish, since he is in the sea.
Only because you've been caught making a ridiculous claim. My son went swimming in the sea last summer. Was he a fish while he was "in the sea"?
Whale: Any of the larger fish-like marine mammals....(Compact Oxford English Dictionary)
Thank you for conceding my point. "Fish-like" does not mean "is a fish," and no fish is a mammal.
Gumlegs: By the way, you still haven't gotten around to telling us how many legs a locust has, whether a hare chews its cud, whether bats and birds are the same, and where the evidence for a world-wide flood is.
I guess you haven't been looking to hard.
You are the one who made the claim that everything in the Bible is scientifically correct. Your inability to back up your statements about the scientific inerrancy of the Bible is noted.
hrmn... ya think?
I suppose throughout history, people have used the Bible to support their own particular ideas of what God 'really' intended to mean, in relation to science....I mean, the Jehovahs Witnesses, forbid blood transfusions based on the Bible, Christian Scientists use the Bible, to justify their adherents getting no traditional medical help, and so on and so forth...
And on the matter of anesthetics...people knew for a long time, that being somewhat unconscious dulled pain, and this was no doubt realized from practical observation, hardly advice from the Bible..I am sure that folks noted, that people who were drunk, and semi-conscious had a dulled pain response....good grief, just watch Gone With the Wind, in the scene where the are getting ready to chop the guys leg off...they want some booze to give the guy to dull the pain...I remember seeing dioramas at the Museum of Science and Industry, about the knowledge and beginnings of anesthic use through time...they show a guy who needs his foot chopped off..two guys are holding the guy down, and pouring a bottle of booze down him...the doc is there, saw in hand, and a bucket at his leg, for them to put the sawed off foot in...
Just every day common sense observation, showed even the commonest man, that being unconscious, very deeply unconscious, completely alleviated pain response...
It was just a matter of time, that scientists, came up with an effective drug, and and method of delivery of that drug..
Since you won't believe what is clearly shown by God's creation,(Ps.19), He is under no obligation to reveal anything else to you.
I wasn't asking God, I was asking you. You are aware of the difference?
See, that's why one has to go to school to be a scientist. Armchair observations are just that.
ah, thanks.
Just give me the title of the human osteology handbook which you acquired from the local police CSI lab and I'll compare it to texts written by other medical authorities. I'd like to see for myself if it asserts that "technically" the cranium consists of "about" 22 bones. Maybe you done been steered wrong.
I have my pocket version here. It says "very large sea animal." Doesn't mention fish. So, again, what source are you using to back up your claim that a whale is a fish?
>>See Gen.1:27 for details.
See Coyoteman's Native American Creation Story for an scientifically equally valid source.
Fester, you are right. I looked it up and some sources do limit the term "cranium" to the eight bones housing the brain, while others include everything except the mandible.
Another term which may be more precise is "calvarium." As far as I remember and as a google search suggests, this is limited to the braincase.
See, if I have not cited something entirely correctly I am more than willing to correct a mistake.
Now, about that global flood business of yours... ?
"Human Osteology, A Laboratory and Field Guide" by ____Bass
I don't have it on me here, but if you'll wait for a bit I'll go dig it out after supper and give you everything down to its ISBN, and cite the chapter and page.
I do recall that the book is divided into "cranial anatomy" and "post-cranial anatomy" - the latter starts at the Atlas, the former includes all bones north of the Atlas.
Coyoteman notifies me that upthread he posted a list of human cranial bones from that very book, fifth edition.
I assume you are trying to point out that only humans have 8 cranial bones because you believe this will verify that there is a sharp delineation somewhere in among the many fossils between our Pan-Homo common ancestor and Homo s. s. that will divide them in to two distinct groups?
If at that delineation point there are features other than the number of cranial bones that place the 'ape' in with 'Homo', which feature(s) takes precedence?
Yeah. I found it. A common dictionary allows for both definitions. The first one includes both facial and cranial bones. The second excludes the facial.
Is there anything about this particular find that would lead one to conclude it is not human?
Does evolution have intelligence? Do not the physical laws say that every thing is breaking down on evolving?
Couldn't lay off. Home page updated.
"Does evolution have intelligence?"
No, why should it have to?
"Do not the physical laws say that every thing is breaking down on evolving?"
No.
1. okers
2. dunno - haven't looked at good images of the subject.
brain capacity, heavy supra-orbital ridge, other factors - all possible.
On occasion...
I'm just trying to figure out who the face behind the mask might be.
eh? what? please become coherent by the time I get back online.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.